Is Your Unit Test Isolated?

(Kudos to the great software guru Jeff Foxworthy for the card phrasing.)An effective unit test should follow the FIRST prescriptions in order to verify a small piece of code logic (aka “unit”). But what exactly does it mean for a unit test to be I for Isolated? Simply put, an isolated test has only a single reason to fail.If you see these symptoms, you may have an isolation problem:Can't run concurrently with any other. If your test can’t run at the same time as another, then they share a runtime environment. This occurs most often when your test uses global, static, or external data.A quick fix: Find code that uses shared data and extract it to a function that can replaced with a test double. In some cases, doing so might be a stopgap measure suggesting the need for redesign.Relies on any other test in any way. Should you reuse the context created by another test? For example, your unit test could assume a first test added an object into the system (a “generous leftover”). Creating test inter-dependencies is a recipe for massive headaches, however. Failing tests will trigger wasteful efforts to track down the problem source. Your time to understand what’s going on in any given test will also increase.Unit tests should assume a clean slate and re-create their own context, never depending on an order of execution. Common context creation can be factored to setup or a helper method (which can then be more easily test-doubled if necessary). You might use your test framework's randomizer mode (e.g. googletest’s --gtest_shuffle) to pinpoint tests that either deliberately or accidentally depend on leftovers.You might counter that having to re-execute the common setup twice is wasteful, and will slow your test run. Our independent unit tests are ultra-fast, however, and so this is never a real problem. See the next bullet.Relies on any external service. Your test may rely upon a database, a web service, a shared file system, a hardware component, or a human being who is expected to operate a simulator or UI element. Of these, the reliance on a human is the most troublesome.SSDD (same solution different day): Extract methods that interact with the external system, perhaps into a new class, and mock it. Requires a special environment. “It worked on my machine!” A Local Hero arises when you write tests for a specific environment, and is a sub-case of Relies on any external service. Usually you uncover a Local Hero the first time you commit your code and it fails during the CI build or on your neighbor’s dev box.The problem is often a file or system setting, but you can also create problems with local configuration or database schema changes. Once the problem arises, it’s usually not too hard to diagnose on the machine where the test fails.There are two basic mitigation strategies:

Check in more often, which might help surface the problem sooner

Periodically wipe out and reinstall (“pave”) your development environment

Can’t tell you why it fails. A fragile test has several ways it might fail, in which case it is hard to make it produce a meaningful error message. Good tests are highly communicative and terse. By looking at the name of the test class, the name of the method, and the test output, you should know what the problem is:

CSVFileHandling.ShouldToleratedEmbeddedQuotes - Expected "Isn't that grand" but result was "Isn"You shouldn't normally need to dig through setup code, or worse, production code, to determine why your test failed.The more of the SUT exercised by your test, the more reasons that code can fail and the harder it is to craft a meaningful message. Try focusing your test on a smaller part of the system. Ask yourself “what am I really trying to test here?”

Your test might be failing because it made a bad assumption. A precondition assertion might be prudent if you are at all uncertain of your test’s current context.

Mocks indirect collaborators. If you are testing public behavior exposed by object A, and object A interacts with collaborator B, you should only be defining test doubles for B. If the tests for A involve stubbing of B’s collaborators, however, you’re entering into mock hell.Mocks violate encapsulation in a sense, potentially creating tight coupling with implementation details. Implementation detail changes for B shouldn’t break your tests, but they will if your test involves test doubles for B’s collaborators.Your unit test should require few test doubles and very little preliminary setup. If setup becomes elaborate or fragile, it’s a sign you should split your code into smaller testable units. For a small testable unit, zero or one test doubles should suffice.

In summary, unit tests--which we get most effectively by practicing TDD--are easier to write and maintain the more they are isolated.

2 comments:

In FIRST, the difference between I and R is a bit blurry in quite many explanations. Their definitions are not very well isolated. ;)

This time your explanation focuses more on the repeatability side (side-effects are isolated etc.) and not so much on the test focus. The explanation at http://agileinaflash.blogspot.com/2009/02/first.html was better (over 50%) focused on the focus of tests.

Here is an example of some tests I was writing recently, where this aspect of test isolation is demonstrated: https://gist.github.com/2559291

In bad.java, the the_sequence_is_thread_safe test (specifically the code in the generateRunIdsSequentially method) has overlap with the other two tests, because it knows the value of the first ID (covered by starts_from_the_first_RunId) and that IDs are incremented by one (covered by each_subsequent_RunId_is_incremented_by_one).

In good.java the test has been improved so that it's not anymore aware of those two things. So if any of those two decisions is changed, only one of the three tests will fail - i.e. each test is testing only one thing.